Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Reb monuments

  1. #1

    Reb monuments

    I think it's safe to assume that very few people here have an interest in 'Confederate monuments' being removed but it seems to be a growing political issue. A soldier's monument in North Carolina was just toppled by criminals. I was at Gettysburg this last anniversary and there were wild rumors abound about 'antifa' having an event to desecrate 'reb graves' and monuments. That was also a rumor last year but it was much more real this year. This should be of concern to all of us who appreciate the history of the conflict and the sacrifices of the combatants. If it isn't... well, then nobody cares what you think. None of these people know shit anyway so it could well spill over to northern monuments.

    About any polling you look at on the issue shows most Americans do not support this, with Rasmussen showing just 19% support removing 'Confederate monuments', nevertheless it is becoming a problem.

    As a northerner and pretty solid unionist, as far as the conflict, I think it's important that we protect these places from being desecrated in the political climate. I'm not a reenactor myself but I think it's crucial that yankee reenacters, in particular, consider countering these 'planned' (media-invited) and lawless desecrations where possible. A bunch of solely reb reenactors protecting a reb monument isn't gonna help so much as far as optics but if northern reenactors show up as well you have a teachable lesson. Afterall if the real veterans could reconcile then it's a lot of absurdities piled up that it's happening today. You can't protect monuments torn down through local governments but I do not believe the national parks or local communities are ready for staged radical assaults based on the overall lack of people on the ground I have witnessed with these rumors and real Facebook group events being planned by outsiders just this last summer. I'd be interested in helping anyone who has time and organizing abilities and connections with advice on building a effective network to help that. Violence in no way helps but if you can delay the loons long enough for police to take control of just one situation then you might well save a monument dedicated by real veterans.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 08-16-2017 at 02:04 PM.

  2. #2

    CSA Lieutenant Colonel

    F. L. Villarreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    299
    I agree.

  3. #3

    USA General of the Army

    John Cooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    381
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
    - George Santayana

    Disclaimer:
    I "Play" a Confederate on TV but I am really just an actor.
    I know of nobody on the WoR Confederate side that advocates slavery or racism in ANY form.

    I simply pose the thought that if we abolish all evidence of the Civil War we may be doomed to repeat it.
    I point to how we have changed the History to support a narrative that there was only ONE cause of the war ... slavery.
    We have forgotten the parts about Trade Inequity, an overbearing out of control Federal government and trampling on state's rights and ... poof ...we see it happening again today.

    Secondly, we either stand for Free Speech for ALL or we stand for Free Speech IF You Are Saying What I Approve Of.
    I, for one, would rather hear Stupidity and Lies that I have a choice to tune out OVER having others choose what I am allowed to say and hear.

    Lastly, when did it become permissible to vandalize something that belongs to another just because you detest it?
    I really do not like anything by Picasso, Munch or Pollock. Does anyone want to join me in storming a few museums? sheesh
    My Great Great Grandfather, Isaac MacDonal Cooley, served as a Pathfinder Cavalry Scout
    in the 1st Arkansas Cavalry Regiment (Dobbin's) Company K
    My Avatar flies his Unit Guidon to Honor his Service.
    My Credo is a simple one ... Unit before Self with Honor above ALL else.

  4. #4

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Also agreed. I had 6 ancestors that all enlisted in Confederate units. None of them were slave owners. In fact, the county they lived in, in Virginia had a slave population of approximately 9.4%, and a population of just over 1,500. So that county had less than 150 slaves. There were Virginia counties that had well over 60% slave population. Now, don't get me wrong, 1 slave is a slave too many. But when it comes to trying to justify in my mind, why my ancestors fought for the side that they did, all I can come up with is loyalty to their state and their family. There is also the idea that men were conscripted at the tip of a muzzle or sword. So at that point it would be fighting for your life.

    So when people say they'd like to see their family's "heritage" preserved, its not always racist bullshit. Society passes judgment about Confederate soldiers that signed up to fight for their state, long before the Emancipation Proclamation, as if they decided to fight to keep slavery, before slavery was an issue to them.

    The problem is, the folks that are tearing down these monuments want their feelings to be recognized, but they don't care about families that lost loved one's in a war, regardless of whether they were fighting for slavery or not. And they only speculate when they say your family members were fighting to protect slavery, because its all they can speculate, because they know no better. Until one of us has a chance to sit down and speak to dead relatives, there is nothing we can do but speculate and instead rely on historical documentation as to their slave ownership or not.

    These monuments represent men that answered a call to fight, mostly for reasons they understood little about. It's so inclusive of the folks willing to tear down these monuments to consider the opposing arguments........bunch of hypocrites.

    Take a look back at Justice Roger Taney, his monuments are also coming down (4 CSA statues came down in Baltimore overnight, including his). He had freed all his family owned slaves prior to any of his time as Supreme Court Justice (which started in 1836), all except one, one that he judged to be too old to provide for himself. He also, as a lawyer, supported an abolitionist preacher in a trial. But the only thing he's remembered for is the Dred Scott decision. Taney had such a mixed history of being pro and anti slavery, that perhaps an educated debate could take place about the man, versus these knee-jerk decisions. But his monuments come down because of his one very poor decision. It seems to be ignored that he was a US Supreme Court Justice, the US Secretary of Treasury, the US Attorney General, the US Secretary of War, and Maryland Attorney General. One bad decision he made unraveled any good he may have done. I'm pretty sure Roger Taney didn't have monuments erected because he made the Dred Scott decision. I'm also sure that Confederate monuments were not erected because they wanted to celebrate and preserve the fact that they eventually fought to preserve slavery. If these were the reasons for erecting the monuments, then by all means, remove them.

    Everyone needs to get off their high horse, take a look around, and take a deep breath. As soon as these monuments are gone and no longer remind us of the progress we've made as a country and a people, the sooner we are doomed to repeat that history.
    Last edited by dmurray6; 08-16-2017 at 03:14 PM.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  5. #5

    CSA Lieutenant General

    John Bell Hood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    31
    The people tearing down confederate monuments are NOT protestors. They are terrorists. Terrorism is using violence and intimidation for political reasons. Just terrorist is the Alt-left.

  6. #6
    David Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    America
    Posts
    680
    I didn't realise removing a statue is violent, or intimidating.
    http://i.imgur.com/STUHVb8.png

  7. #7

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by David Dire View Post
    I didn't realise removing a statue is violent, or intimidating.
    I understand your response, but did you see the monument that was pulled down in Durham, NC yesterday? It wasn't merely removed by a crew of the city after a governmental decision was made to do the removal. It was surrounded by protestors, climbed upon, a strap thrown around it and pulled down to the ground. It was then spit on, trampled, kicked, and any other word you'd care to use to describe their outrageous public behavior. Bunch of fucking clowns is what they were. Dude spits on and gives the finger to an inanimate object. I'm sure his parents are mighty proud.

    Link to Durham, NC video

    You tell me what words you would use to describe it if not violent and intimidating.

    Not to mention the fact that it's vandalism of city property. It's likely that the city tax dollars didn't pay for the statue, it was probably donated and sponsored by a group, so I can't use that debate. But I'm sure city tax dollars has been spent to maintain the statue. So, yea, vandalism fits the bill nicely. And even if tax dollars did go to pay for the statue and its maintenance, just because you're a tax payer doesn't give you the right to destroy it. People that want the statue to remain are tax payers, and people that want it gone are tax payers, so we in a democratic society elect our representatives to make the decisions that a majority will have to agree with. That's how our fair world of freedom operates. We are free, and in return you get a vote. It's not hard. These people could have all showed up and cast a vote. Instead, they'd rather play rogue tough guy. Our society is supposed to have a system of law and justice to deal with such.
    Last edited by dmurray6; 08-16-2017 at 08:06 PM.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  8. #8
    David Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    America
    Posts
    680
    Now that I wasn't aware of. I am completely against such against such actions, legal or not.

    Point still stands, however, I woudn't call it terrorism. Though something should be done about it, that definition would make an insanely large amount of groups and organisations throughout history terrorists, including America in many times, as well as every other great power.
    http://i.imgur.com/STUHVb8.png

  9. #9

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    Not my thoughts, but I found the following information helpful in answering someone who perhaps doesn't see things as clearly as they should. Enjoy the read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Greenfield
    One Easy Way Democrats Can Stop Neo-Nazis Charlottesville is what happens when the Left empowers extremists.
    August 14, 2017 Daniel Greenfield 223

    In Dallas, a black nationalist activist shot and killed 5 police officers at a Black Lives Matter anti-police rally. Instead of condemning BLM, Barack Obama defended a racist hate group whose role model is Assata Shakur, a wanted black nationalist cop killer, at the funerals of the murdered officers.

    The left killed civil rights and replaced it with black nationalism. The racial supremacism of black nationalism that killed those officers is everywhere. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi are lionized as brilliant thinkers instead of hateful racists, Amazon has ordered a black nationalist secessionist fantasy from Aaron McGruder and Showtime aired ‘Guerilla,’ a miniseries glamorizing Black Panther terrorism.

    But racism is a two-way street. So is violence. Extremists feed into each other.

    You can’t legitimize one form of racism without legitimizing all of them. The media may advance this hypocritical position. Obama used the shameful “reverse racism” euphemism that distinguishes between black and white racism. But propaganda and spin don’t change the physics of human nature.

    Either all racism is bad. Or all racism is acceptable.

    Charlottesville is what happens when you normalize racism and street violence. Every normalization of extremism equally normalizes the extremism of the opposite side.

    A civil society depends on a consensus. ‘Racism is bad’ is an example of such a consensus. If you normalize black nationalism, you will get more white nationalism. If you normalize leftist street violence against Trump supporters, you will also get more street violence against leftists.

    Extremists want to eliminate the consensus of civil society. They want to destroy the idea that there’s any solution except violence through confrontations that show the helplessness of civil society.

    That’s true of black nationalists and white nationalists, of Communists and Nazis, of Antifa and Vanguard, of the tankies and hipster Nazis of the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right. They’re a set of evil twins and when you unleash one, you unleash the other. Their real enemies aren’t each other, but everyone in the middle. The bourgeois normies who don’t want to replace society with their totalitarian nightmare.

    Street violence raises the bar so that only the violent will participate in protests. If you “no platform” campus speakers, then the only speakers you get will be those willing to face bomb threats, arson, and physical assaults. If you fire people for their views, political activism becomes the province of anonymous trolls and unemployed street thugs. Extremism limits political discourse to extremists.

    If Democrats really want to stop the rise of Neo-Nazi violence, there’s a very easy way. Stop normalizing black nationalism and the Alt-Left. End the racist witch hunts for white privilege. Make it clear that street violence is unacceptable and that racism is bad no matter who it comes from. Allow people you disagree with to express their views without trying to destroy their lives.

    But that’s the opposite of what the Dems will do. They don’t want fewer Neo-Nazis; they want more of them. They don’t want fewer attacks like Charlottesville and Charleston. They want more of them.

    The Dems have become an extremist party run by the radical left. Obama, Holder, and Lynch made common cause with black nationalist hate groups against civil society. It began when Obama defended the vile racism of Jeremiah Wright and concluded with DOJ organized race riots. DNC boss Tom Perez addresses La Raza and his deputy Keith Ellison is a veteran of the Nation of Islam.

    The radical left wants to see Neo-Nazis gain prominence on the right to polarize the country. It wants to see our values and norms drowned in violence so that it has an excuse to eliminate free speech. It seeks to eliminate democracy by making the other side appear nightmarishly dangerous. It plots to impose a totalitarian system on the United States by empowering extremists to destroy the current system.

    And their opposite numbers waving swastika flags want the same thing. The difference is that they don’t control the Republican Party the way that the Alt-Left and black nationalists control the Democrats.

    Charlottesville is what happens when civil society fails. And those who set the terms of permissive discourse, who control the media, academia and social norms, are responsible for the failure.

    Conservatives don’t have that kind of power. It’s the left that does.

    Liberals, if there are any left on the left, can shut down racism and extremism. Or they can continue normalizing it until it’s mainstream and meaningless.

    If you want to understand how we got to Charlottesville, the events at Evergreen State on the other side of the country are as good a place as any to start.

    Evergreen’s President Bridges, the progressive who had called for safe spaces and allowed intersectional left-wing racists to terrorize his campus over their demands for racial segregation, was asked in an interview about accusations that he is a white supremacist.

    Bridges replied that he doesn’t believe that he is a white supremacist. And then added, “It depends on what you mean by white supremacist.” He concedes, “I am a white person in a position of privilege.”

    White privilege is how the intersectional left defines white supremacy. Any white people who aren’t allying with them to destroy Western civilization are defined as white supremacists. And even those who do, like Bridges, can always be accused of white supremacy for not destroying it hard enough.

    When you spend enough time accusing everyone who doesn’t share your politics or even your race of racism, you make the term meaningless.

    That’s what the left did over eight years of Obama. By the time the election rolled around, Hillary was defining all Trump voters as racists and sexists.

    When you spend enough time crying wolf, eventually a real wolf appears. A real wolf showed up in Charlottesville.

    The left spent eight years dismantling any meaningful definition of racism for political reasons. The practical effect of their actions was to eliminate social sanctions for actual racists.

    And the real racists were happy to take advantage of the new climate.

    When the left insists that everyone with white skin is part of white supremacy, that Shakespeare, Beethoven and all of Western civilization embody white supremacy, it’s echoing the actual talking points of white supremacy.

    If you tell all Obama critics and Trump supporters that they’re racists often enough, some will decide that maybe they are racists.

    If you tell a student who objects to racially segregated areas on campus that she is a white supremacist, she will be more likely to become one.

    When you marginalize everyone to the right of you, some of the marginalized will accept the definition.

    And when that happens, the left wins, the extremists win, and it becomes harder to maintain any kind of functioning civil society in which we settle conflicts through compromises rather than street violence.

    Compromises are uncomfortable.

    After the Civil War, the Union was preserved, but Southerners were allowed to honor their cause. It was an uncomfortable compromise, but it helped limit the violence from a conflict that had claimed the lives of 2% of the population. The Taliban campaign by black nationalists to tear down Confederate memorials was a deliberate effort at shattering a compromise that kept civil society working.

    And that too led to Charlottesville.

    Uncomfortable compromises are how we learn to live with each other. It means that there can be memorials of Robert E. Lee and streets named after Malcolm X. Tolerating people whose views we don’t like is one of the best ways to marginalize domestic extremists. When one set of extremists is empowered to wipe out the other, we end up with a civil war. Just ask Edmund Ruffin and John Brown.

    Democrats claim a mandate from the “Right Side of History” to eliminate all the compromises. Catholic nuns must pay for abortions and birth control, Christian bakers and florists must participate in gay weddings, every white person must confess their racism, and every left-wing extremist must get their way.

    That’s how you tear a society apart.

    The Bill of Rights is an uncomfortable compromise. It says that we have to put up with people we don’t like. The Democrats, under the influence of the left, are rejecting that idea. But that goes both ways too.

    You can have a liberal society or an illiberal one. But you can’t have a society that is selectively liberal when it comes to your bigotry, but illiberal of the bigotry of others, that believes you have the right to say anything you please without consequences, but that no one else does, that you can punch, but not be punched. That’s a totalitarian state. And the only way to realize it is through violence.

    Democrats need to take an honest look at the street violence in Seattle, in Portland, in Berkeley and Charlottesville, and decide if this is what they really want. If they don’t, it’s time for them to stop normalizing left-wing extremism. If they do, then they are to blame for the next Dallas or Charlottesville.
    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

  10. #10

    CSA Major General

    Dether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    121
    I hope this thread ends here, there are some of us who do care about those monuments just as we do those of Washington and any other patriot who fought for what they believed was right. NOT SLAVERY! and the destruction of any property is wrong for any reason in this manner, even if it were a mosque after 911... so this debate is a mute point, and not worthy of further study on these forums. (in order to not offend any)
    All governments, everywhere derived its power by the consent of the people. The government you have is by your own consent. Not by those brave grey dead of one hundred and fifty plus years ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •